jrawle wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2011 at 11:33am:

Not at all. My underlying concern (which is loosely relevant to the issue) is that victims of crime and those reporting it, but who do not see it taking place, are being treated in the same way as those who contact the Police on any trivial or administrative matter. Because 101 is used for both, I believe that it should be "free to caller", totally paid for out of taxation. I would be content for a geographic rate number to be used for the latter purpose.

This situation has existed for a very long time; 101 has simply it brought it more clearly into focus. Both BMW and bicycle owners have been paying 20p (or 40p) per minute to report the loss of their vehicles, as they find them missing and immediately use their PAYG mobiles. In many cases they would have called 999 and been given the number to redial.


The Home Office has stated that the geographic alternatives are made available for use by those who have "concerns about call-cost". My point about the Police switchboard operator was that they may question whether the owner of a high value car was justified in being reluctant to pay their telephone company 15p for a phone call. It seems possible that a caller to the West Mercia Police switchboard may have to press their concern about call-cost, if asking to be put through to the 101 call centre, as this is specifically excluded from the calls that the switchboard is said to handle.

15p is less than a subscriber to the current "default" BT call plan would pay for a 1 minute call to a geographic rate number before 7pm on a weekday. (As Unlimited Anytime is now the most popular BT plan, BT should consider making this the default, with a discount for those who only make calls after 7 or at the weekends - or through other call providers.)

My personal view is that citizens should not be obliged to "ask for favours", e.g. having to express a concern about call-cost, when accessing public services provided to all without charge. I believe that we should all be able to access all such services on equal terms, regardless of wealth, vehicle ownership, telephone tariff or any other personal characteristic.

I see the terms of our arrangements with those who facilitate access, i.e. telephone companies, ISPs, postal and courier services, bus companies, taxi firms, car park operators etc. as a totally separate issue. With 101, this separation has been fudged by persuading the telephone companies to apply an unusually equitable approach to charging for calls.

jrawle wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2011 at 11:33am:

I believe that this is one of the reasons why, given that the government was not prepared to pay to make these calls free, it made an arrangement for everyone to pay the same relatively low fee, so as to avoid the sizeable cost that some would incur in contacting the Police by telephone on a geographic rate number.

To achieve what some would see as an equitable outcome, there are obviously some who will pay more than they would to call a geographic number. I believe we are in agreement that the proper approach would have been for us all to pay for these calls through our taxes.

jrawle wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2011 at 11:33am:

If there is a point that I may be repeating too often, it is that somebody always pays.

It is never the government (central or local) or a public body, it is the taxpayers who provide their money.

It is never the telephone companies or other businesses, it is most often their customers, who provide their money.

Most of the time we are only arguing about the capacity in which we pay for things.

I argue that we should pay for calls to 101 as taxpayers. All of us paying the same as callers is perhaps the next best option. Given that 101 is used for the reporting of crime, I do not think it fair that we should pay according to what we would pay for a geographic rate call. For other contact with public bodies, I do believe that geographic rate calls are the proper option. I do not believe that those accessing public services by telephone should pay to subsidise the cost of providing the service, which should be met by taxpayers. (There may be an exception in the case of self-funding public services, e.g. the Land Registry, where costs are met by fees paid by users, rather than out of taxation. It is however imperative that such fees are clearly declared and justified.)

- End of lecture -

sherbert wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2011 at 8:29pm:

Just a brief comment for now, I could do a lecture if you wish! ... certainly on 111.

We have 111 which is the health alternative to 999, allegedly for urgent but non-emergency cases. This is "free to caller". The brief however is apparently being extended to cover all aspects of health information and advice, as offered by NHS Direct. This will end unhappily!

The Fire service grew out of services provided by insurance companies to only deal with emergencies at properties which they covered. It is not impossible that the Fire service will be scaled back to deal only with cases where there is danger to life or to the public interest. Those calling 999 about other cases may be advised to ring their insurance company (and we know what type of number that is likely to be!).

Do not make the mistake which the AA once made, by forgetting that the Coastguard Service (on 999) is the fourth public emergency service.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2011 at 10:05pm:


...and cave rescue is the fifth.

Although, I am not sure how you get a signal deep under the ground

From today's Daily Wail,...... sorry Mail


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2065288/15p-charge-calling-police-New-co...

In this article....


The 15p cost of the call will go directly to Cable and Wireless for providing the service. In addition, forces will also pay a further 0.035p per minute for every call received, an Acpo spokesman said. In 11 forces, 101 will replace premium 0845 numbers which often led to much higher call costs

speedy wrote on Nov 24^th, 2011 at 12:43am:

And just how do you phase out a phone number slowly?    

You can phase out publicity of the number but actual calls can either get through to the number or, when it's turned off, they can't.

I have just looked all over the Kent Police Site and nowhere obvious can you find shown their usual 01622 690690 number - however on persisting on Site - Contact Us - Press Office - Out of Hours it does show 101 inside Kent - 01622 690690 outside Kent / Overseas ) there is another 01622 number for the Press Office ending in 50

There is also a Complaints to which I will be sending an email pointing out that their Home Page contravenes the Home Office assurance that a Geo Number would be Published alongside the 101 and see what they come back with - I will look for an Official Home Office statement and include that in my email.  Will update here when any answer.

speedy wrote on Nov 27^th, 2011 at 2:56am:

It would be very useful if anyone can find or obtain afresh a formal Home Office statement to confirm, deny or supersede that reported by Ofcom at para 6.21 of its statement on 101 in 2006 ...

Quote:

It could be said that this no longer applies, now that 101 is only being used for the Police (except in Sheffield), rather than for Police / Local Authority partnerships.

It is of some interest to note that there is no reference to geographic alternatives in the "marketing pack" made available to those doing the PR work on the 2011 launch of 101. Although not conclusive, this provides strong evidence that the Home Office policy has changed. A policy to provide alternatives without communicating the fact to those who may wish to use them amounts to not providing them. The "get out" could be that the alternatives are only for use by those who are so concerned about call-cost that they can find them without the Police admitting to the fact that they exist.

P.S. I like the reference to "over 40p per minute" as the cost of calling a 0845 number - I wonder where that particular figure was picked up from! Yes, I know they should have abandoned 0845 some time ago, but we cannot deny those who do the right thing the opportunity to take some credit for doing so, even if it is belated.

---

bigjohn wrote on Nov 27^th, 2011 at 4:44am:

Now we have the problem with those who would find it much cheaper to call 101 and choose to be connected to Dorset when calling from outside the area. For some, 20p per minute is a lot more than 15p per call.


To quote "Dennis Moore" from the famous Monty Python sketch - Quote:

Whilst Dennis was trying to impose total equity by force, it is no less tricky for those of us who simply seek to have equitable principles applied to the delivery of public services.


In the end it may come down to the particular operations of each Force / Service / Constabulary. Some may operate a geographic number which is suitable for use as an alternative to 101, others may not. I doubt that the Home Office compels a particular operational model for all Police communications services beyond what is necessary to ensure consistency of the 101 service itself.

The question is whether it compels a geographic alternative to 101 to be provided and maintained, as it stated in 2006. If not, then the battle over alternatives will have to be fought in each individual case, unless the Home Office can be persuaded to change its position - and also deal with any funding consequences that may result.